Harshal Bahrani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 May, 2026

Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla

Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12549




                                                              1                            MCRC-20305-2026
                              IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT INDORE
                                                          BEFORE
                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                                             &
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
                                                    ON THE 4 th OF MAY, 2026
                                            MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 20305 of 2026
                                                     HARSHAL BAHRANI
                                                           Versus
                                               THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           Appearance:
                                   Shri Varun Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.
                                   Shri Lokendra Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent.

                                                                  ORDER

Per: Justice Alok Awasthi

The present M.Cr.C. has been filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 being aggrieved by the order dated 24.04.2026 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Dewas, whereby the application filed by the respondent has been allowed and the applicant was directed to give his voice samples.

02. Facts of the case reveal that on 31.10.2025, an FIR bearing No.149/2025 was lodged was registered against the present applicant, who was posted as Naib Tehsildar for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The FIR notes that following the demand of Rs.15,000/- made by the present applicant from the complainant, the complainant appeared in the office. Acting upon the said information, a trap was

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12549

2 MCRC-20305-2026 organized and the applicant was caught accepting the said amount. Thereafter, the respondent / Department completed the trap proceedings and issued notice to the applicant under Section 35 of the BNSS.

03. Thereafter, it came to the knowledge of the Investigating Officer that during the trap proceedings, voice samples of the accused were not taken. Subsequently, notices were served upon the accused repeatedly directing him to provide a voice sample. Notwithstanding this, regarding the failure of the accused in providing the voice sample, an application was falsely drafted asserting that a voice sample had indeed been collected during the trap operation, whereas the same has not been done. Since the accused was violating the notice issued under Section 35 of the BNSS, therefore, the

Investigating Agency filed an application which came to be allowed vide order dated 24.04.2026 directing the applicant to give the voice sample on 05.05.2026. Hence, the present M.Cr.C. is before this Court.

04. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that alleged trap proceedings were conducted on 31.10.2025 by the then Investigating Officer (Ramniwas Yadav & Amit Vatti) and on the same day under the coercion and threat of arrest, the applicant was compelled to provide his voice sample. Hence, the voice sample had already been obtained by the Investigating Officer on 31.10.2025. It is further argued that after issuance of notices dated 09.11.2025, 18.12.2025 and 23.02.2026, the applicant submitted a reply to the notice dated 18.12.2025 on 19.12.2025, reply to the notice dated 23.02.2026 on 27.02.2026 stating that the voice sample had already been provided on 31.10.2025. Thereafter, again on 13.04.2026, a notice was

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12549

3 MCRC-20305-2026 issued to the applicant to remain present on 17.04.2026 for providing the voice sample, wherein it has been stated that there was no mention regarding voice sample in the case-diary and charge-sheet as well, therefore, it appears that the sample was not recorded. It is further argued that in response thereto, he did not appear and stated that the sample had already been provided.

05. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that the applicant submitted a detailed reply to the notice dated 13.04.2026 stating categorically that he had already given his voice sample on 31.10.2025. He further argued that it appears that the earlier collected voice sample could not be matched up with the transcript, therefore, the respondents is again asking for the same. Since the present applicant has already provided the voice sample, therefore, again giving the same is not permissible. Hence, the impugned order be set aside by allowing the present M.Cr.C. In support of the aforesaid contention, he has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Babu Bhai v/s The State of Gujarat & Others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254 .

06. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the aforesaid prayer and argued in support of the impugned order. However, he argued that the respondent never collected the voice sample of the accused.

07. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

08. In the instant case, the present applicant is repeatedly stating that his voice sample had already been taken by the then Investigating Officer on 31.10.2025 and they lost the same and now he is being called for recording

the sample again. However, the stand of the respondent is that the voice

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12549

4 MCRC-20305-2026 sample had never been recorded by the prosecution agency at any point of time.

09. While deciding the application, the learned Special Judge has taken the prop of the judgment delivered in the case of Rahul Agrawal v/s The State of West Bengal reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2219 , wherein relying on judgment delivered in the case Ritesh Sinha v/s The State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2019) 8 SCC 1 , the Apex Court has held as under:-

''8. Following the aforesaid precedent, it was held in Ritesh Sinha1 that despite absence of explicit provisions in Cr.P.C., a Judicial Magistrate must be conceded the power to order a person, to give a sample of his voice for the purpose of investigation for a crime. We specifically note that this Court had not spoken only of the accused and specifically employed the words 'a person', consciously because the Rule against self-incrimination applies equally to any person whether he be an accused or a witness. It was also directed that till explicit provisions are incorporated in the Cr.P.C., the Judicial Magistrate will be so empowered by virtue of the said judgment. The issue was also pending with the Government and with the advent of the BNSS, it has been specifically incorporated under Section 349.

9. We need not hence consider the question as to whether it is the Cr.P.C. or the BNSS which would be applicable to the present case. If it is the Cr.P.C., the three Judge Bench decision in Ritesh Sinha1 permits the same on the identical principle adopted by this Court in Kathi Kalu Oghad2 to permit furnishing of handwriting, signature and finger impressions. The said sampling is similar to voice sampling, as now possible by reason of the advancing technology. If it is the BNSS that is applicable, then there is a specific provision enabling such sampling. The reasoning was also that mere furnishing of a sample of the fingerprint, signature or handwriting would not incriminate the person as such. It would have to be compared with the material discovered on investigation, which alone could incriminate the person giving the sample, which would not fall under a testimonial compulsion, thus not falling foul of the rule against self-incrimination.''

10. In the present case, even if it is presumed that voice sample of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12549

5 MCRC-20305-2026 the applicant was recorded on 31.10.2025, despite that he can be called for re-recording the same for example; if a first sample is deemed low quality, unclear, or if technical advancement allows for better comparison, the prosecution may seek a second sample to aid the investigation, provided it is directed by a Magistrate / Special Judge (EOW).

11. So far as the argument of counsel for the applicant that the voice sample is not the attached with the case-diary is concerned, the charge-sheet can be filed by the prosecution only on relied documents. It is the duty of the applicant to co-operate with the Investigation Agency, otherwise the trial Court can take presumption under Section 119 of the Bhartiya Saksha Adhiniyam, 2023.

12. In view of the foregoing discussion and dictum of the Apex Court in the aforementioned case, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Court.